Featured The definitive evidence against only limited atonement.

Nope. That's your twisting.
I have full faith in the Bible. I think you are a quack. That's the difference.
My theology is entirely in the Bible. I provided a much, much, greater list of scripture in the attached pdf I provided. Others have shared volumes of scripture with you.
Now, you can keep denying what the Bible says and create these foolish "So" statements of yours, or you can actually read the whole of God's word and know you are dead wrong.

 

All you have to do is read are listen to a Calvinist twist the meaning of scripture. They cannot take that words as written but instead have to add their special meaning to the words. Read through some of the posts from Calvinists on BB and you will see what JonC and I are saying is true.

 

I would say that is the general call, explained in the WCF chapter 10 part 4. If you read that carefully it is exactly what you said except that the Calvinist position is that with man's spiritual condition naturally, salvation doesn't happen. Your position is that that IS enough, and man can either accept or reject at that point. So the Calvinist is saying that because man does not have natural ability enough to be saved then if the work of the Holy Spirit was sufficient for someone to be saved they call that call "effectual". The only thing the WCF is guilty of is trying to explain something that is probably beyond our reach in too much detail.

I have read these parts of the WCF over and over and they are very difficult and are often applied in ways that are not helpful. But I have also read Arminian theology and non Calvinist Baptist theology and they are contradictory because they insist that God has to give all men this prevenient grace, and this is the important part: it is absolutely essential, yet men still have to choose of their own free will. What they are doing is protecting man's libertarian free will while hoping to stay away from Pelagianism which all the orthodox churches condemned. It doesn't work.

 

The last resort of the failed is to use slander. I was wondering how long it would be before you started down that road again.

Austin what you have show me in the PDF does not support you at all.

Predestined:
Romans 8:29
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Romans 8:30
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

[God, in His infinite foreknowledge, knew that certain persons would freely trust in Christ Jesus and these He predestined to be conformed to the image of His son. Those so predestined were called through the gospel message and having believed were justified and would be glorified.] This is not God picking out a select group but rather Him knowing via His omniscience those that would trust in His son.

Ephesians 1: 3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

[So what do we see here; 1} we are blessed in Christ, 2} He chose us in Him (Christ), 3} He blessed us in the beloved (Christ); 4} adoption through Jesus Christ and it was 5} all according to the purpose of his will. So what is the purpose of His will,

Eze 18:23 "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?


1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

And we see this also in the next verse which you did not include
Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

Ephesians 1:11-12
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

[Here again we see His purpose and His will mentioned and as before we should look at Eze 18:23; 1Ti 2:4; and Eph 1:7 for some guidance. We can also look at the following verses

Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.

Conclusion
God is omniscience so He knows who upon hearing the gospel message will freely trust in His son and those are the ones that are justified and glorified. While God desires all to be saved, it is only those that freely trust in His son that will be.

Being chosen for service is not being chosen for salvation, you do understand that right. But and this is a point you always miss, even those that freely trust in God can and are called His chosen.

 

I have read the WCF also and what I find is that it is trying to protect the Calvinist view.
The text contradicts itself yet Calvinists insist that it does not.
From all eternity and by the completely wise and holy purpose of his own will, God has freely
and unchangeably ordained whatever happens.
then they want to get God of the hook they have put Him on by adding This ordainment does not mean, however, that God is the author of sin
Logic would dictate that if God ordains all things then that means all things not just some things. Do you not agree?

At the right time, appointed by him, God effectually calls all those and only those whom he has
predestined to life.
Here we are presented with two possible readings. 1] God was being disingenuous with all the good faith offers of salvation being available to all or 2] God has effectually condemned to hell all those not called and for no other reason than that He did not call them.

I do not base may faith on what i see written by Calvinists or non-calcinists. My faith is based upon what the bible says. From what I have read and heard from many Calvinists, their theology does not line up with the bible. Many are more concerned with protecting Calvinism than they are the truth of the bible.

 

You have put your trust in the arm of the flesh since you believe sinners Christ died for perish in their sins anyway.

 

Why are you reluctant to say yes or no ?

 

@Silverhair
We've been through the various interpretation of "ordain" and such. I just want to say two things. One, I appreciate the way you take time to answer these things I post . It is a pleasure to converse with you. Two, I think at the point of a person being told about the gospel there is one thing to do - repent and believe it. When I think about what actually happened when I repented and began to believe and follow Christ I just think the order of what happened and the why of it can best be explained by moderate Calvinism.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff. You make no since at all.

 

Can you read?

 

LOL, I love how you throw out this completely unsubstantiated comment, twice, in the middle of your post.
"God is omniscience so He knows who upon hearing the gospel message will freely trust in His son."
The Bible explicitly tells you in Romans 1 and Romans 3 that no one, not even one, will ever freely trust in Jesus.
We read in Ephesians 2 that God must make us alive. In John 3 Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again before he can be saved.

Silverhair, you have no scripture to support your claim.

It's time you wave the white flag and admit you are utterly wrong.

 

Yes I agree that it is nice to be able to hold opposing views without being disagreeable. I do have a question for you though. You said that you repented and then believed, in that order. So my question for you is why would you repent if you did not first believe? You would not have any reason to repent or even the inclination to do so.

You keep referring to moderate Calvinism so I did a google search and found this web page: TULIP
Does it comport with what you mean by the term? If not then it what way is it different?

 

Take off your Calvinist glasses when you look at scripture it will help you see the truth.
Austin you just keep showing how silly you are. You keep saying that man cannot freely choose to trust in God but then insist that those that go to hell chose to go there. Really? Where did they get the free will ability from. Themselves or God?

Think about what you are saying, the God that wants/desires all to be saved 1Ti 2:3-4 and has the power to do such yet He only picks out a select group to save. Now was God lying when He said He desires all to be saved or are you just ignoring the text.

Don't you trust what the bible says Joh 3:16 or what Paul says in Rom 10:9 or again in Eph 1:13.

You struggle with the bible text because you want to justify what Calvin has put forward. You can hold to that view all you want but do not expect someone that trust the bible text to agree with you.

So no I will not be waving a white flag but perhaps you should.

 

Do you believe sinners Christ died for will yet die in their sins He died for ? Yes or No ?

 

Yeah can you ?

 

LOL, let go of your Calvinist boogeyman. It is YOU who keeps using Calvin as an excuse for rejecting the Bible. I provide scripture after scripture while you reject passage after passage with the phrase "Calvinist."
Silver, this whole discussion is you rejecting God's word.

 

"The order, repentance first, and faith following it...You can have an intellectual assent to propositions; you can have notional faith, but you cannot have saving faith without repentance. Repentance is involved in it, and it is in a sense because you repent that you believe."
D.M. Lloyd-Jones from "The Puritans" page 182.
Honestly though, I intended only to list both, and didn't really think of the order because one is the flip-side of the other. Also, good theologians reverse the order, depending on what point they are trying to make.

No. I'm glad you put that up. That is a lot like what John R. Rice said in his discussion of hyper-Calvinism. He said he was a Calvinist and then went on to discredit 4 out of the 5 points. What I mean by "moderate" is someone like Martyn Lloyd-Jones or Charles Spurgeon who are full 5 pointers but have evangelism, warm preaching of repentance, and experiential living of the Christian life as their main priority rather than the theological debate around things like soteriology. Both of these guys were quite precise in their theology yet Lloyd-Jones was a fan of methodism and Richard Baxter and Charles Spurgeon used to have his old sermons reprinted in Sword of The Lord, the fundamentalist newspaper, which I think was started by John R. Rice. There are, in my opinion, some modern Calvinists who seem to have as their main goal in life a mission to gleefully tell people that a whole bunch of the human race was created by God in order to burn in hell - and then, because they are good at debate they humiliate the upset and shocked Christians who oppose them. I want nothing to do with that.

 

Once again read post # 57. The answer is there.

 

Seems clear to me that you lack that ability.